XogGyux wrote:Not really. You can define anything. Not interested in what you or anyone can define or if you and 10 other people agree on definition X while 10 others on definition Y. I am interested on what something means on a practical sense, on the functional interpretation of the situation. A row of shrubs can be considered a wall, however, if it does not stop wind, insects, animals and people from crossing it, for all intent and purpose, it is not a wall.
So? In this case whoever is a person would have rights, so of course it's important to have a good definition we can agree on for completely practical reasons.
My point is that organizations are not treated like ordinary people are. It's a different concept of "personhood", and it's derived from the fact that organizations are managed by natural persons
XogGyux wrote:Probably, but it does not matter, once the newborn is outside the woman, now he/she is no longer on direct conflict with the mother's body autonomy. Told you, personhood has nothing to do with this, at all. Once he is out, it does not matter if he/she is a person, certainly the state, who is now registering him/her with a birth certificate believe he/she is a person. At what point in time it truly becomes a person? I don't really know and I don't know if we can know.
At what point in this video does the fetus become a child/person?
Was it truly not a person before? What's the magical thing about being outside and the umbilical cord being cut that turns it into one, given that it doesn't have the past a comatose may have?
And yes, personhood definitely has to do something with this. Bodily autonomy is not an absolute right.
XogGyux wrote:If you think that is a bummer, imagine being forced to keep a pregnancy so that it ends up as a stillbirth or dies shortly after due to malformations that are incompatible with life. If you knew your computer was going to arrive broken, you might have wanted to cancel the purchase before it is delivered right? You'd prefer to abort the purchase .
I think those cases can be seen from a risk/benefit point of view, does the woman's risk compensate the few minutes, says at most, the baby will live?
Or you could also claim that, since the fetus has little prospect of living in this case, it's not a person anyway. Not under the definitions of "person" I pulled from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
XogGyux wrote:Irrelevant, the moment that the newborn is out of the mother and the umbilical cord is cut, the rights of this new creature no longer comes in direct conflict with body autonomy of the mother. Do we force new mothers to breastfeed? We know breast feeding is better for the newborn, better immune system (and not to mention, you don't have to go try to buy the infamous scarce baby formula). We don't force mothers to breastfeed the baby, if the mother does not want to allow her nipple to be sucked up by the baby and/or chewed up, etc... we don't force her.
No, but giving the baby formula won't kill it either. It's a matter of proportionality, if breastfeeding was essential for infants to live and there were no alternatives, I'm pretty sure our ethical system and laws would mandate it.
XogGyux wrote:The conflict only originates when you start giving rights to an unborn fetus that nobody else possess. I don't possess the right to my mother's kidney. Why would I possess the right to live inside her uterus if she does not want to?
But you do have the right to be supported by your parents, indeed, neglecting you can lead them to jail.
XogGyux wrote:This was never a question of religion freedom. I don't really care why that woman is refusing the blood. Instead of being a jehova's witness say that she thinks blood transfusion comes with government chips just like vaccines and she is refusing the blood under those grounds. Nothing religious, she just does not want it. This is about her deciding what goes into her body. Whether she believes it is because of religion or because she is just disgusted about having someone' else bodily fluids being injected into her... it is irrelevant.
Even in that case, why would pregnant women have the right to refuse things like vaccination while you or I wouldn't? Why would it be okay for her to drink herself to oblivion yet illegal for all 18-year olds do the same?
XogGyux wrote:It does not matter. At this point, the children are outside of the mother and mother's body autonomy is not violated if you give a transfusion to the newborn.
You realize we cannot stop a pregnant woman from smoking? From drinking? from using IV drugs? we cannot force her to take folic acid to avoid neural tube defects? But once that baby is out, if we find out that she is feeding this baby whisky and smoking in front of the baby and maybe giving it a bit of her heroin so that the baby would stop crying or not feeding the baby a nutritious food, all of the sudden that becomes neglect/criminality and the baby could be taken away from her, she could face jail for child endangerment?
Birth is when the rights of the fetus and the mother are deconflicted, severed connection. It is not 20 weeks, or 15 weeks, or first heartbeat detected, or "viability" (whatever that means), but birth, when this occur.
If anything, there's a far better case for banning the pregnant woman from drinking than an 18-year old adult. Same for smoking or doing legal drugs.
XogGyux wrote:Irrelevant. Adults can make their own health care decisions provided they have capacity and are competent. JW have this right just the same way you do or I do. You can refuse having a colonoscopy, this could mean you don't catch that colon polyp that 10 years down the line could be a metastatic cancer that kills you. Are you suggesting we should go ahead and insert a camera in your rectum despite your refusal because failure to do a colonoscopy could result in your death? Medical/ethical/legal is quite clear on your autonomy to make decisions about your body, this is not seriously questioned, not that I am aware of.
No, I'm not suggesting that. But if fetuses are persons, then your decisions don't just impact yourself.
XogGyux wrote:An organ is not a limb just FYI.
That's just a mode of speech, taken from the Constitution
XogGyux wrote:We don't even force parents to donate blood. Your limits seem arbitrary.
Tell me, do you think we should force parents to donate blood/plasma?
What about a bone marrow? It regenerates just as blood does (blood comes from bone marrow).
What about a piece of the liver for a partial liver transplant? The liver regenerates/grows.
What about skin? You got plenty?
Apparently you draw the line at kidneys ?
I do think you have an ethical obligation to do so as a parent. I don't know if it's legal to force them, I don't think this has been tested, but the ethical obligation to help your children seems quite straightforward to me.
The law already forces parents to fulfill certain ethical obligations towards their children, such as supporting them. Why would this be all that different? If anything, for plenty it may be far easier or even preferable to donate blood or bone marrow than to pay child support.
XogGyux wrote:This is where terminology matters. You can have persuasion, even certain degree of coercion, but we don't have an enforced mandatory universal vaccination.
That coercion is a form of enforcement. Limiting your right to attend education may not be as harsh as fining you or even putting you in jail, but it's still a form of enforcement.
When there was a discussion about making COVID vaccination compulsory, the question doesn't just mean putting on paper "everyone shall be vaccinated for COVID". It also includes deciding on how to enforce the obligation, if for example the law decided to ban abortion but did not define how will the ban be enforced (which includes the consequences of having or performing abortions) then abortion is effectively legal and that statement is dead letter.
XogGyux wrote:You can persuade a woman to have sex with you by offering her a fun night, or perhaps money, or perhaps the implication that she might end up being married to you and obtain a US citizenship. All of those are means of persuasion, but none of those are "forced against her will" which would equate to rape.
But you can't for example say you'll get her fired from her job and destroy her career for sex. You know, #MeToo and all that.
XogGyux wrote:Actually no. The pregnant woman with acute appendicitis comes to the ED, she still gets narcotics for her appendicitis pain, even though we know there is a degree of harmful effects to the fetus. Now, we do disclose this to her, she can say "I can endure the pain, don't give me anything that would put my child at any sort of additional risk" and we will surely do what she ask but we go by HER wishes.
Now, a doctor might refuse to prescribe a specific drug especially, when there are readily available and efficacious alternatives. I might refuse to prescribe doxycycline which is an antibiotic that has teratogenic effects but then again I have a myriad of other antibiotics to choose from.
Well, in that case she could die if she isn't treated, could her? I'd say the proportionality aspect is being fulfilled here - sure, the fetus may suffer or even die, but it's done to save her life or from grievous harm ("loss of limb").
XogGyux wrote:Yet they are not banned for women that are pregnant... How about that, the mother is exposing the fetus (age 0) to all of these chemicals, and she is not breaking the law .
I know, it's irrational and disproportionate if you think about it.
XogGyux wrote:What do you mean "does not involve grievously harming, let alone killing the fetus". Folic acid deficiency can lead to neural tube defects, some might be mild but many can be disabling (quadriplegia due to severe spinal Bifida, anencephaly which would lead to death).
Can be analyzed on a case-by-case basis.
XogGyux wrote:LOL "relax" about it.
Actually, the alternatives to blood transfusion are vastly inferior to blood transfusion. There is a reason we collect blood for million of people. Alternatives such Iron and EPO takes days to kick in and if your hgb is 4 this is precious time.
And yet those are recommended for treating pregnant JWs, and it seems their death rates from anemia are low all in all.
XogGyux wrote:Frequency is irrelevant. Rape is far less frequent than shoplifting, it does not mean it is a less serious case.
This case only serves to illustrate the implications of treating the woman and fetus as 2 different entities and attempting to enforce the rights of both simultaneously.
So your solution then is to just arbitrarily decide only one of them has any rights? Would you do that for conflicts between two adults?
XogGyux wrote:It does not stop at abortions. Some states define or want to define life at fertilization and this has serious implications for fertility treatment, in-vitro.
They can define "life" however they want, but under Roe v Wade fetuses are not persons anyway. They cannot do much more than that as things stand now.
XogGyux wrote:Doctors are not lawyers. Our practices of medicines are already overwhelmingly complicated by law, malpractice, etc. We are forced to learn far more than many of us would like because otherwise it is not safe to practice medicine. Keep this shit and I wouldn't be surprised of the demand to be a OBGYN in Alabama or Okhlahoma drops significantly. Wouldnt it be ironic if in an attempt to "save lives" these states make certain specialties so unworkable that the ensuing exodus of doctors leads to even more maternal/fetal deaths? Or more infertile couples that are unable to conceive due to no local doctor available to help with fertilization? That is a sad world that we could be heading towards.
It's hard to know, honestly. It depends on how the SCOTUS approaches this.
If they are going to follow the shtick that rights should be "deeply rooted in this nation's history and tradition" to the letter then I would think the quickening standard would apply once again. That means states would not be able to ban abortion before the 16th week, covering the vast majority of abortions being performed today.
Pants-of-dog wrote:In the sense that people who want to ban abortion do not care about or make any provision for the right to life of the pregnant person.
Are you sure? https://news.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx
For the latest survey asking the "risk of life" questions (2018), 48% of respondents said abortion is "morally wrong" yet they broadly agreed with allowing abortion to preserve the woman's life (be it at the first or third trimester).
More generally, only few Americans seem to believe abortion should be illegal in all cases:
@Drlee I would find those two answer to my questions a big deal. I agree with @late this doesn't seem to be based on a principled interpretation of the law, regardless of one's personal views on whether fetuses are persons, and abortion.
Firstly, there is no reason to assume the right to life of a pregnant woman is less protected than that of a fetus, assuming the latter is a person. If another person puts my life at risk, or risks grievously harming me, I have a right to self-defense - even if this someone doesn't intend to, like a gunman having a psychotic break could. This is a right that's most definitely recognized by the law, even if as a form of affirmative defense.
Secondly, for good or evil, the common law quickening standard would objectively amount to a right "deeply rooted in this nation's history and tradition". This is true even if the basis for it (that the fetus is alive only when the pregnant woman realizes it's in her womb, without making any claims about its personhood) is clearly factually wrong. This argument would if anything apply for allowing states to ban abortion after 16 weeks, which is a soft overturning of Roe v Wade of little practical consequence.
If the SCOTUS truly wanted to let states ban abortion before quickening, I would guess it would claim that since state laws have been moving to recognize fetuses as persons then the Federal Government has no business in defining the concept of "person" since the Constitution is mum on this matter (as stated in Roe v Wade), thus letting states do so and then deal with the huge
legal consequences that would arise from it.
This ruling however would seemingly conflict with a large body of precedent and will lead to litigation in several other matters. What truly matters about overturning Roe v Wade is why
would the SCOTUS do so, that's possibly more important than the outcome of the case itself. If you're right about the stated reasons for overturning Roe v Wade, @Drlee , then I agree this could be one of the most important court rulings of the last century.